Recognize Chess as a Sport in Canada

[Frank Dixon]

To return to the original theme of this post, I attended the 2023 New Year Levee hosted by Kingston's Mayor Bryan Paterson this past Tuesday night, Jan. 10, at City Hall, right before the regular bi-weekly City Council meeting. While there, I spoke with both Mark Gerretsen, MP for Kingston and the Islands since 2015 (and Mayor of Kingston 2010-2014), and Ted Hsu, MPP for Kingston and the Islands (and MP 2011-2015). Both Ted and Mark are Liberals, and Ted is an accomplished player and organizer; Mark is a recreational chess player. My main topic with both was: Chess as a Sport in Canada. Both asked me to follow up with their offices; both were amused and intrigued with my idea of a Parliamentary Chess Match!!

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec

The health care system is collapsing and has been collapsing for a long time. This collapse is not due to lack of funds as Canada has one of the largest health budgets, per capita, in the world. The priorities (often driven by political considerations) of the health care system is the biggest problem of the health care system. Spending more money will not solve the problems of the health care system.

.....

They would fire more nurses just like they did last time the nurses got a big raise.

You have a good insight into what is really going on in our Public systems, Vlad. PP may be arguing in good faith, but he does not seem to realize that if all the money for chess is diverted into our health care system, it will get used up in meeting after meeting after meeting amongst administrators and administrators and administrators, talking about whether to hire nurses, how to hire nurses, where to hire nurses, when to hire nurses, which nurses to hire, etc. etc. etc., till time and money both run out... and even if they eventually hire new nurses, it will be to administer drugs pushed, by hook or by crook, by big-pharma... very likely not a single extra nurse will get hired in the ERs... (we could save a lot of money, and avoid a lot of drug related toxicity, by simply rationalizing the prescription of expensive medications)

So let's see if I have this right ....

We agree that the health care system is collapsing in Canada.

We can agree from the facts that people are waiting unbelievably long times (by standards of a few decades ago) in ERs across Canada to receive treatment, and that some of these people are even dying while awaiting treatment (and in the case of the link I provided, screaming for help as they die, probably traumatizing for life any young kids that are in that ER at the time) .....

For Vlad and Dilip, it is a situation where no matter how much money is put into health care, it will go to waste ... and even if nurses get better job hours and benefits, "they" will just "fire" more nurses (I don't know whether "fire" means fire for incompetence or whether it means "lay off").

So for Vlad and Dilip, the situation is that no extra taxpayer money should be allocated for health care, and instead taxpayer money should be allocated for chess.

What does this remind me of?

The Titanic .... hit by an iceberg, sinking .... the symphony band decides to sit on the deck and play their instruments as the ship sinks.

In the case of the Titanic, we can say for certainty there was nothing the symphony musicians could do to save the sinking ship.

This is not at all so clear for the "sinking ship" of the "collapsing" Canadian health care system. The system can still be salvaged, can still be repaired, we have OPTIONS. One of these options is to allocate money for hiring of nurses, and simultaneously pass legislation preventing unwarranted firing or laying off of nurses.

But Vlad didn't think of that, he just ASSUMES that we can't avoid extra "firing" of nurses, so don't put any money into hiring of nurses.

Dilip says this extra money would go into administrative wranglings. Therefore don't even bother allocating the money. Just play chess as the Titanic sinks, we can't save the ship. There is, Dilip ASSUMES, nothing that can be done about administrative wrangling.

Vlad and Dilip, making assumptions that encourage us to just gather on the deck of the sinking ship and put taxpayer money into chess as more and more lives are lost or suffering increases in the sinking ship of the health care system.

I ask ChessTalk readers, do you want such ASSUMPTIONS to control your life and the lives of those you care about?

The Canadian health care system is NOT the Titanic. It can be saved.

[Fred Henderson]

So, when chess gets added to the school curriculum, are y'all gonna have your children and grandchildren learn the royal game that way? And by the way, will the course be optional or mandatory?

[Neil Frarey]

And by the way, will the course be optional or mandatory?

Good question!

I think that teaching lateral thinking should be mandatory, and chess may or not be the option the institution chooses to go with.

Just like health care ... I think it should be a two-tier option.

[Fred Henderson]

Good question!

I think that teaching lateral thinking should be mandatory, and chess may or not be the option the institution chooses to go with.

Just like health care ... I think it should be a two-tier option.

hmmm. surely forcing a kid to take chess lessons is a great way to put them off the game, eventually.

Chess requires lateral thinking? more detail please.

And WADR you didn't answer the question. Who's gonna teach your grandkids chess?

[Hans Jung]

hmmm. surely forcing a kid to take chess lessons is a great way to put them off the game, eventually.

Chess requires lateral thinking? more detail please.

And WADR you didn't answer the question. Who's gonna teach your grandkids chess?

I am and my son.

[Fred Henderson]

I am and my son.

Very Good. Is this what we mean by the two-tier system then? Also, I still don't have an answer. For the "publicly funded" tier, is this to be some kind of requirement? Or optional? reading, riting, rithmetic, chess?

here's one. maybe Neil should get a tax deduction for paying you, sinxe he chooses not to avail himself of what is available "for free".

[Neil Frarey]

hmmm. surely forcing a kid to take chess lessons is a great way to put them off the game, eventually.

Chess requires lateral thinking? more detail please.

And WADR you didn't answer the question. Who's gonna teach your grandkids chess?

First of all, Fred ... it's not about chess lessons.

Don't give a shit about any effin ability to play the game of chess ... none.
And as president of the CFC I would act the same as I do here. Chess is a lot bigger than chess playing ability... a lot! Incredibly so.

And if you don't understand that, Fred ... that's OK, I get that too.

Second of all ... how many ways can you checkmate a lone King with just one rook and King? Force the King here, force the King there ... etc. How many ways?

There's more than one way ... solve a problem. To find a solution.

Lateral thinking.

How about a knight and bishop and King vs a lone King?

Starting to get the idea, Fred?

Don't need to teach chess on a ECO level to gain the benefits of Chess. Sorry, but you don't.

Besides all of that ... on a social level ... at its core, at its very heart and soul ... Chess is simply an 'interface'. Nothing more than that. A non judgemental place or interface, where two people can meet. Perhaps two complete strangers communicate with each other.

Crazy concept, huh?


OK ... I'll rant on a little bit more ...

The Chess Federation of Canada is a shit show.

Never ever, have I seen any president of the CFC display ANY understanding of Chess ... whatsoever ... never ever.

And that's going wayyy back past Kalev Pugi ... no disrespect intended.

I get it, I do!




.

[Richard Holman]

Chess is not a sport. Is it normal to consider players who put on substantial weight from the game ATHLETES??

[Pargat Perrer]

... how many ways can you checkmate a lone King with just one rook and King? Force the King here, force the King there ... etc. How many ways?

If by "ways" you mean "methods", there is only 1 ....

- force the opposing King onto the perimeter of the board, then ....
- force the opposing King to move into opposition, then ....
- give check to the opposing King from a Rook that is at least 2 squares distant from same King

And realize that a King that has moved into a corner square has NOT moved into opposition.

Lateral thinking.

How about a knight and bishop and King vs a lone King?

A MUCH better example of lateral thinking is to devise a new chess variant, one that has never been devised before, using only the standard chess pieces and standard chess board and where the pieces have the same moves as in standard chess, but the rules of winning and losing are different.

Is there an infinite number of possible variants using that criteria? That's lateral thinking.

Don't need to teach chess on a ECO level to gain the benefits of Chess. Sorry, but you don't.

Agree wholeheartedly. That alone should make you President of CFC, but alas, CFC = FIDE.

Besides all of that ... on a social level ... at its core, at its very heart and soul ... Chess is simply an 'interface'. Nothing more than that. A non judgemental place or interface, where two people can meet. Perhaps two complete strangers communicate with each other.

This is the main way chess is portrayed in movies and TV where the particular show is not centered on chess. Characters are seen seated before a chessboard, playing chess, and talking about something else besides the game. One player usually checkmates the other, and there is no post-game analysis, and the loser does not feel disgusted with himself or herself. The game is very secondary. This is how chess should be.

And why should it be that way? Because chess is merely an exercise for the mind, it is not a sport. Think of it this way: if the chess search tree were much smaller, so that we had solved chess completely, chess could not be a sport. Checkers, solved, will never be a sport. So the only thing significantly differentiating chess from checkers is that the chess search tree is so much bigger, just like our universe, too big to be totally perceived. That doesn't make chess a sport.

Go is not a sport, and it has a search tree that dwarfs the chess search tree.

[Fred Henderson]

First of all, Fred ... it's not about chess lessons.

Don't give a shit about any effin ability to play the game of chess ... none.
And as president of the CFC I would act the same as I do here. Chess is a lot bigger than chess playing ability... a lot! Incredibly so.

And if you don't understand that, Fred ... that's OK, I get that too.

Second of all ... how many ways can you checkmate a lone King with just one rook and King? Force the King here, force the King there ... etc. How many ways?

There's more than one way ... solve a problem. To find a solution.

Lateral thinking.

How about a knight and bishop and King vs a lone King?

Starting to get the idea, Fred?

Don't need to teach chess on a ECO level to gain the benefits of Chess. Sorry, but you don't.

Besides all of that ... on a social level ... at its core, at its very heart and soul ... Chess is simply an 'interface'. Nothing more than that. A non judgemental place or interface, where two people can meet. Perhaps two complete strangers communicate with each other.

Crazy concept, huh?


OK ... I'll rant on a little bit more ...

The Chess Federation of Canada is a shit show.

Never ever, have I seen any president of the CFC display ANY understanding of Chess ... whatsoever ... never ever.

And that's going wayyy back past Kalev Pugi ... no disrespect intended.

I get it, I do!




.

I have known how to checkmate with K&R vs K and K+B+N v K for 40+ years, I just never thought of it as "lateral thinking". I don't even know what the term "later thinking" means, but it sounds like I'm already doing it. Perhaps I'll read de Bono's book then.

So at its "core" chess is just "an interface" then? If you say so.

The CFC is a shit show? It serves a role. I guess that role is to support "Official OTB chess". A very small part of all the chess activity that goes on everywherer. That just goes to show that the majority of people who love and enjoy the game don't give a "s h i t" about "official" otb chess. In no way is the "social interface" aspect of chess lessened by Internet play, nor is the learning and personal growth aspect, unless you are stuck in the 20th century.

And if chess is just a social interface, then why the hell do we need the CFC in the first place?

[Fred Henderson]

Huh??? "Not about chess lessons?" Are we not talk about children taking chess lessons in school??, is about the vehicle we are choosing to spread the word, I would say, and who should be paying for it. Let the parents pay for it.

[Neil Frarey]

Agree wholeheartedly. That alone should make you President of CFC,

Thanks so much, Pargat!

... but alas, CFC = FIDE.

Sad, but true.

[Vlad Drkulec]

If by "ways" you mean "methods", there is only 1 ....

- force the opposing King onto the perimeter of the board, then ....
- force the opposing King to move into opposition, then ....
- give check to the opposing King from a Rook that is at least 2 squares distant from same King

And realize that a King that has moved into a corner square has NOT moved into opposition.




A MUCH better example of lateral thinking is to devise a new chess variant, one that has never been devised before, using only the standard chess pieces and standard chess board and where the pieces have the same moves as in standard chess, but the rules of winning and losing are different.

Is there an infinite number of possible variants using that criteria? That's lateral thinking.

Chess Boxing, 3D chess (seen on Star Trek and Big Bang Theory), Fischer Random, Bughouse and 3 check chess are the only variants that I am aware of that have shown any traction. The cool kids mostly play regular chess at various time controls though chess boxing is a dangerous alternative. Why isn't there chess kickboxing or chess MMA?

Agree wholeheartedly. That alone should make you President of CFC, but alas, CFC = FIDE.

If only he had bought a membership. Things could have turned out differently but he needed guarantees from a skeptical audience. A missed opportunity? Perhaps it happened somewhere in the multiverse.

You and Neil are the wallflowers of chess, always on the sidelines screaming for attention. Why don't you play in a tournament?

[Neil Frarey]

You and Neil are the wallflowers of chess, always on the sidelines screaming for attention. Why don't you play in a tournament?

Drkulec ... please, shut the fuck up. Thank you! You have NO idea of what Chess is in Canada ... NONE. Except of course for the rare times when you pull your head out from your own ass long enuff to kiss FIDE's ass ... then ya, OK, you do. Elitist little prick ... you are.

I can't speak for Pargat, might be a wallfower, might not. How would I know what he has accomplished or given back to Chess? Probably a lot more than elitist little you.

As for me ... and my continued support for Chess in Canada over the last 2 decades + ... I'll let Banff Open organizer Ian Findlay or perhaos even Don Parakin with our chesstastic collaboration re: CFC logo speak for me on just a few of my recent involvement.

Other than those few testimonies ... I'm not going to waste anymore time on you, Drkulec. Right now, as I see it, you're simply not worth my time.

But having said ... when and if you finally manage to pull your head out of your ass you'll experience two wonderful sensations ...

• Your ass will feel a lot better!
• Scrub your face ... then take a good look at how wonderful Chess is in Canada!

Thanks!



.